ArticlePloS one2025
Maternal gut microbiome interventions to improve maternal and perinatal health outcomes: Target product profile expert consensus and pipeline analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expert consensus on pre-eclampsia risk screening tools for low- and middle-income countries: Development of a new Target Product Profile.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Biohacking the human gut microbiome for precision health and therapeutic innovation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Functional metagenomic reconstruction of microbial pathways altered by probiotic supplementation in liver failure.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Microbial beginnings: determinants and disruptions of the neonatal microbiome.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a novel Target Product Profile (TPP) outlining the minimum and optimal requirements of probiotics targeting the maternal gut microbiome, create a research and development (R&D) pipeline of maternal microbiome interventions, and identify the highest potential probiotic candidates matching TPP criteria.
designA mixed-methods study including in-depth interviews, an international survey, and online public consultation, with systematic R&D pipeline development.
settingInternational research context in maternal gut microbiome interventions. POPULATION: Ten stakeholder groups were included in the study for feedback on the TPP development.
methodsStakeholder feedback from 23 interviews and 32 survey responses was analyzed to revise the TPP. A systematic search of databases (Adis Insight, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, Ovid MEDLINE, and relevant grant databases) identified drugs, supplements, and biologics targeting the maternal gut microbiome. Probiotic candidates were matched against key TPP criteria to identify promising options for future research.
main outcome measuresStakeholder consensus (≥75% agreement) on TPP variables and identification of high-potential probiotic candidates.
resultsThe TPP met consensus for most of the 20 variables: 16 for minimum and 14 for optimal targets. Interviews raised issues concerning indication, target population, diagnostic requirements, and efficacy outcomes. Of 38 candidates identified in the maternal microbiome pipeline (2000-2023), eight were probiotics, with one high-potential candidate (Vivomixx) and two medium-potential candidates (Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacterium spp.) identified.
conclusionsThis study produced the first TPP and pipeline analysis for maternal gut microbiome interventions, identifying probiotics with higher potential. Few candidates reached late-phase research, highlighting the need for efficacy trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.